Total ban on smokes not likely

BLOOMINGTON - If a proposed smoking ban is to pass in Bloomington, both sides will have to come to a compromise.

Bloomington aldermen on Monday discussed their positions and their questions regarding a smoking ban so city staff members can get to work on drafting an ordinance. It could be voted on at the April 24 or May 8 meetings.

Alderman Kevin Huette seemed to be the only vote on the council who would favor a total ban to prohibit smoking in public places, including taverns and restaurants. Huette told fellow aldermen he would like to see the city adopt an ordinance exactly like one currently under consideration by the Normal City Council.

A proposed ordinance discussed by the Normal council April 3 would ban smoking in all indoor public places, except designated hotel rooms, retail tobacco stores, private clubs or lodges, and rooms in assisted-living or nursing home facilities.

Smoking would be allowed in outdoor patios and public sidewalks, parks and golf courses except in the case of public assembly.

The Normal council plans to vote on the ordinance May 1 and - if adopted - the ban could take effect Jan. 1.

Alderman Mike Matejka said one problem with approving an ordinance like Normal's is the differences in how liquor licenses are regulated between the two cities. Bloomington licenses allow taverns in addition to restaurants while Normal only offers licenses for restaurants.

The principal business of taverns is the sale of alcohol, so children generally aren't present and smoking is more tolerated. The line between restaurants and taverns is blurry, however, Matejka said.

"Through our liquor commission and licensing process we've encouraged all taverns to serve food," Matejka said.

If an ordinance is drafted to cover establishments that serve food, they would run into some difficulty excluding taverns, he said.

Meanwhile, Aldermen Allen Gibson, Steven Purcell and Jim Finnegan said they would like to see the city go without an ordinance. Finnegan, an ex-smoker, said he would like to see everyone quit smoking, but whether a restaurant or tavern is smoke free should be a decision made by business owners and not the council.

Aldermen J. "Skip" Crawford, Karen Schmidt and Matejka said they could vote in favor of an ordinance that provides some compromise between the local tavern and restaurant owners and those campaigning for a smoke-free community.

Alderman John Hanson said he does not want to see the city trying to regulate small businesses, but he did not say how he would vote.

In recent weeks Mayor Steve Stockton has been working with both groups to find some compromise, but he said they will never be able to agree. Stockton, who votes only in the event of a tie by the council, said he favors a ban of some kind.

Barbara Taft, who represents the Independent Tavern and Restaurant Establishments, suggested that all places with tavern licenses be exempt from the ban and restaurants that gain 40 percent of their sales from alcohol be exempt from the ban.

Peggy Jones, health initiatives director for the American Heart Association, said one major goal of the smoke-free campaign is to protect the health of workers in taverns and restaurants. That group is opposed to exemptions.

Although Jones said the smoke-free group would meet with the tavern and restaurant owners, she said it is possible the smoke-free group would consider calling for a referendum.

In home rule communities such as Bloomington, referendums are non-binding.

All views and opinions expressed in user comments are solely those of the individual submitting the comment, and not those of The Pantagraph or its staff.

Mark Roberts wrote on April 11, 2006 9:44 PM:"to hpr... no truthful stats about second hand smoke huh? Well.. spin it how ever it makes you feel right man. I for one believe these so called untruthful stats the AMA and the American Cancer Society are throwing out. As for you smoking.. more power to you. I have had both parents die from smoking 3 packs a day. You can die anyway you want but I prefer to live a nice long life. So.. please keep your smoke to your self."

To: to hrp wrote on April 11, 2006 9:33 PM:"so are you saying you think it is okay to go to a restaurant that serves food you don't like, and demand they change their menu? That is basically the same thing. Would you go into Famous Barr if you hate their clothes, and then demand they bring in a wardrobe you like? I have plenty of analogies. The point is all the same though: if you don't like steak, don't eat it; if you don't like smoke in restaurants that cater to BOTH smokers and non-smokers, then don't go there. oh, and your comments are dumb too. "

They want it all.... wrote on April 11, 2006 9:29 PM:"Are you non-smokers forgetting that there already are plenty of non-smoking restaurants? and that the one's that do allow smoking only allow it in a section away from non-smokers? That means you DO have the option to have a smoke free meal, but you are all acting like you don't. Why is that? Is it because you will never be satisfied until you have successfully pushed your preferences onto the public? That makes more sense than your "health" whining. Especially since second-hand smoke isn't as harmful as we were all led to believe. And really, quit being so dramatic. You will not get lung cancer merely by sharing a building with a smoker for a half an hour. And if that is what you are scared of, go to another restaurant. Not that hard to figure out. I refuse to bow down at your feet, like you are better than me cause you don't smoke. Get over yourselves."

hrp wrote on April 11, 2006 9:19 PM:"my comparison was no dumber than yours! At least it was a little bit closer in comparison than the stuff you guys listed. In fact, some real studies (unlike the one's non-smokers like to quote), have shown that fish can be dangerous for some people to eat. Pregnant women aren't supposed to eat fish. (by the way, I hate seafood, and no I don't think Red Lobster is high class, although it is higher than yours) And cat allergies IS a health issue, duh. And to y'all that keep bi%&$-ing about health concerns let me say this: Thank you so very much for your concern, but I choose to smoke. It is my health you are concerned about right? can't be yours because there are no truthful statistics that say second-hand smoke is as detrimental to your health as you all like to preach. Especially when said smoke is on the other side of the restaurant. "

A proposal wrote on April 11, 2006 9:11 PM:"I heard someone suggest this a few days back, so I can't take credit for it, but for all us smokers let's make a pact. If this ban should go through, let's all boycott buying smokes in city limits. Go to another town, or order 'em off the net. Bet you anything the town's economy hurts because of it, since a large portion of the taxes comes from the taxation of cigarettes. "

outside wrote on April 11, 2006 8:45 PM:"if the smokers are forced to go outside and smoke then you will have ten or so people outside the door smoking and all of you non smokers will have to walk through a huge cloud of smoke to go in and then you all will be griping about that next, and there wont be a damn thing you can do about it!"

Be realistic wrote on April 11, 2006 7:16 PM:"Seriously, if you sit in a bar and can't handle the smoke as you damage your liver, then you probably shouldn't be there in the first place. If the smoke worries you about your health as you're sitting on that barstool then you should probably be at home watching your "Full House" and "Golden Girls" re-runs. "

to: I Love it wrote on April 11, 2006 7:11 PM:"That's what they said in Cali, and Florida, and all the other places with smoking bans. Trust me, like it or not, it's coming. :)"

I love it wrote on April 11, 2006 6:32 PM:"I love reading all this crying and whining on here! Keep it up!!! :) Mark my words, they will never FULLY ban smoking in bars, never ever, trust me on this one, wink, wink. 1. "I don't smoke, thus you can't smoke if I'm in the same place as you." (PLEASE!!!!) "

Keep the Land of the Free - Free wrote on April 11, 2006 6:18 PM:"Isn't america all about choice? I am a non smoker and feel that cigarettes probably shouldn't be legal in the first place. But guess what; they are legal. If you don't like smoky restaurants don't go to them."

The "real" me....?????? wrote on April 11, 2006 5:55 PM:"Wow, good job of using a real adult approach to your thoughts on this issue....blowing smoke into your neighbors baby's face. You are clueless....your mentallity on this issue has a place.....in a museum. I can see it now....a young man asks his mother.......were people really like that? Mother responds....with a frown...yes, unfortunately, there are still people like that in our society today. You can smoke all you want......but you need not endanger the lives of your neighbor's child.....that is rediculous....and i would guess that there would be something that your neighbor could do to stop you. Applause.....stand up in front of the group.....you just brought this debate to a record low.........sad, very very very very sad."

Mark Roberts wrote on April 11, 2006 5:27 PM:"Ok..Ok.. all of the smokers keep saying.."Vote with your feet". I say for a whole month, if you are in favor of a smoking ban.. do not frequent any bar or restaraunt that allows smoking of any kind. Lets say we pick the month of May. For the whole month of May non smokers and smokers too, who feel the Twin Cities need this smoking ban, stay out of the smoking bars and restaraunts. Go to Ned Kellys... Avanties...McDonalds... Subway... any place that doesnt allow smoking at all. And on June 1st... I bet you the bar and restaraunt owners will be begging to go smoke free or do it own their own. Because regardless of what restaraunt and bar owners say..its not about rights...its about money. And I dont wanna hear any of these owners whine saying we are picking on them. They all said the cliental will decide if they are smoke free or not. We also will decide if they stay in business if they care only about money and not our health."

To to b/c its legal? wrote on April 11, 2006 5:08 PM:"Right, and why is indecent exposure illegal? Because someone else imposed morals on you and because it can give rise to a health issue. That sounds familiar . . . oh yeah, just like smoking."

clean air is a RIGHT wrote on April 11, 2006 4:38 PM:"I absolutely agree w/ "inevitable"... those who own businesses already have to follow some gov't regulations for the health & safety of their customers: food must be served at a certain temperature, employees must wash their hands, etc. A smokefree ordinance would further protect patrons from a known human carcinogen. Further, what about the workers?? With the exception of the hospitality industry, most workplaces are now smokefree. Hospitality workers should be afforded the same protection as nearly every other worker who works in a smokefree environment."

To HRP wrote on April 11, 2006 4:37 PM:"What are you talking about? I take it you are one you considers Red Lobster as fine dining. Keep smoking and making dumb comments. "

Good Reason to Quit wrote on April 11, 2006 4:34 PM:"Why dont all you smokers take this opportunity as a motive to quit smoking? The ban is eventually going to be put into place whether you like it or not. "

To: hrp wrote on April 11, 2006 4:29 PM:"Smelling seafood, and being around cat dander do not cause cancer. If it were radioactive seafood and the cats were coated in asbestos, then I would fully agree with you. Otherwise, I think you've still got both apples and oranges in that argument. "

Inevitable wrote on April 11, 2006 4:24 PM:"It isn't going to happen now, but the writing is on the wall. All public establishments will eventually include a ban on smoking. This isn't telling a business how to run itself any more than the MANY existing laws that are already in place on businesses if they wish to have a license within our community. Business owners have a choice as well. If they don't like the laws, they don't have to own a business. Get a different job. The anger seen from smokers on this is a well documented psychological phenomenon exhibited by addicts when any restriction is placed on their access to their drug. People don't smoke because it relaxes them (the real term should be "stops the withdrawal"), or because it tastes good (when's the last time you picked up that half-gallon of tasty tobacco flavored ice-cream?), but because they are addicted. Plain and simple. Because of their addiction, the rest of us are supposed to limit which establishments we frequent. Yeah, we'll have to for awhile longer, but not that much longer."

Don wrote on April 11, 2006 4:13 PM:"Pass an ordinance as close to Normal's as possible. Don't start "bar wars"."

hrp wrote on April 11, 2006 4:09 PM:"Question for all non-smokers and pro-banners: If you do not like to eat seafood, would you go to Red Lobster and demand they quit serving it? after all, it does have a funny smell. Everyone is throwing out all these so-called comparisons, that are comparing apples to oranges. Lets compare apples to apples now. Next question: If you are allergic to cat dander, would you go to a Vet's office and demand they quit catering to felines?"

for Bloomington Resident and others wrote on April 11, 2006 4:05 PM:"I agree with you, Resident. But I want to remind you all that we do have that compromise now, with smoking and non-smoking sections, and even whole restaurants that have gone non-smoking by choice. Smokers have compromised by giving up smoking in some of their favorite restaurants, like Avantis. Non-smokers don't want the compromise, they want it all their way, all the time. To address all those that claim they have the RIGHT to breathe clean air, but we don't have the right to choose which air to breathe, I say this: Go breathe your clean air. No one is stopping you. Nobody is forcing you to stand where the smoke is. Nobody is forcing you to eat in the smoking section or even in a restaurant that has smoking at all. You have already gotten your way, with little complaint from smokers. But I will stand up and complain to those think they have the RIGHT to dictate how restaurants are run. Eat somewhere else!"

To: Chicago Resident wrote on April 11, 2006 3:58 PM:"I'm confused, isn't the outside of a restaurant MORE public than the inside of the restaurant?"

Bloomington Resident wrote on April 11, 2006 3:54 PM:"This whole debate comes down to an issue of civility and good manners. If everyone wanted to be considerate of everyone else, we wouldn't be having this debate. Instead, all we hear is screaming about "rights." We have the right to act civil toward others. That means not blowing smoke in other people's faces, and having a place where smokers can go in comfort. Can't we all just get along?"

Chicago Resident wrote on April 11, 2006 3:47 PM:"I live in Chicago where smoking has been banned in all restaurants and many bars have already made the switch to smoke free. I must say that it provides a much better experience without the smoke looming in the air. It will not kill you to step outside to have a smoke if you are that addicted and dependant on killing yourself. Another bonus you do not leave smelling like an ash tray. I hope Bloomington follows suit with the rest of America and puts the smoking ban into place."

ive realized that wrote on April 11, 2006 3:40 PM:"all the non-smokers believe its there way or no way....i havent seen ONE non-smoker stand up and say HEY they have a god given right to smoke, yes it shouldnt effect me, but why should they be "punished" (so to speak) by haveing their rights taken away so that I can be happy?? How come none of you non-smokers will be happy if both sides are appeased? I mean in a way that we can smoke, and it doesnt effect or bother you? Las Vegas airport has a smoking room where the smokers can go to smoke inside the airport... why would that be so unheard of to ask these businesses to place a smoking "room" in so that the smokers can smoke, and it doesnt effect all the non-smokers at all...but at any rate re-read the title of the article."

okay-To:To bob wrote on April 11, 2006 3:34 PM:"so you would stand up and fight if they make smoking illegal, but yet you dont stand up for our rights as smokers to be able to have places in public where we can smoke??...i am a smoker, and i am aware of all the health risks both first and second hand...but why is so hard to ask for both sides to be accomidated? As many non-smoking estabolishments are created, there should still be places in public smokers can go.... if there was an equal amount of smoking places, and non-smoking places, do you still think the non-smoking public would still be unhappy...yes and i belive "dw" said it best...."

for the business owner wrote on April 11, 2006 3:29 PM:"For all of you who don't believe that a ban affects the businesses please, please look at this web site. It lists all the businesses in the U.S. by state and some foreign countries that have been affected by bans.http://www.smokersclubinc.com/banloss3.htm "

To Rupert wrote on April 11, 2006 3:25 PM:"You and others are totally missing the point of us non-smokers. If you want to smoke, fine! Go ahead, no problem. But when I start inhaling your second-hand smoke, it affects me. Thanks what all of this about -- effects of your smoke on my body."

to b/c its legal?: wrote on April 11, 2006 3:20 PM:"No we should not be able to have sex anywhere b/c incecent exposure is not legal...so take your pointless comparison to smoking elsewhere......"

To: to bob wrote on April 11, 2006 3:16 PM:"Yes, but all of those things were legal at one time. Laws change. And they didn't make smoking legal - they just didn't make it illegal. There's a big difference. That's what we're talking about - whether or not to add an additional restriction to the myriad of existing restrictions in place to protect the public good. Don't get me wrong. I would stand up and fight if they tried to make smoking illegal, and I don't smoke. I firmly believe people should be able to do anything to their body they want as long as it doesn't effect anyone else."

Rupert wrote on April 11, 2006 3:12 PM:"You guys are missing the point. If you begin banning certain items for health reasons where does it end? The biggest point is choice, every person has the choice to do what he or she chooses within the law. So if you want smoking to be banned, then make it an illegal substance. That is never going to happen because there is too much taxation and money to be made with tobacco sales. Have any non smokers frequented bars through the week, like Sun, Mon, Tues, Wed, Thurs? My guess is no. Smokers are the ones keeping taverns open with their business through the week. Your 1 day a week visit to a bar is not what is keeping their doors open. Sorry to break it to you."

Because it is legal? wrote on April 11, 2006 3:09 PM:"So smoking should be allowed everywhere because it is legal? Ok, so we can have sex wherever we want also then?"

More facts wrote on April 11, 2006 3:03 PM:"Secondhand smoke and breast cancer linked - A California scientific panel will review a draft report showing a potential link between secondhand smoke and an increased risk of breast cancer. The conclusion that secondhand smoke causes breast cancer, particularly in younger women, challenges conventional scientific thinking because most studies, until recently, had found no connection between female smokers and breast cancer. Overall, women exposed to secondhand smoke have up to a 90% greater risk of breast cancer, the report says. It says secondhand smoke kills as many as 73,400 a year in the USA. This and more information at: http://www.smokefreesociety.org/index.asp "

Just the facts wrote on April 11, 2006 3:01 PM:"There are 295,734,134 people in the USA. An estimated 46,000,000 smoke. That's 15.5% of the population, so clearly (cough, cough) there are more non-smokers than smokers."

Smoking does infringe wrote on April 11, 2006 2:59 PM:"on my right to clean air. It's like the old adage, "you can swing your arm all you want until it strikes my jaw." Smoke is the arm that I inhale, so your smoking is infringing on me. And don't compare McD's or other fast food -- there's no comparison. While eating fast food may make you fat, it doesn't affect me. "

To Bob wrote on April 11, 2006 2:28 PM:"Your posts are prefectly on point...unfortunately, many of the posters that are against the ban will not understand them or be swayed. It amazes me how people continue to compare the consumption of alcohol to the smoking of cigarettes. Do you not understand that my personal consumption of alcohol (under the legal limit) does not affect anyone other than myself, while your smoking affects everyone surrounding you?"

It will go on and on wrote on April 11, 2006 2:20 PM:"This argument will never cease because both sides want their own way. Bloomington and Normal city councils need to poll all the business owners of restaurants and bars. and go with the majority. We live in a democracy, right?!?!?!? To non-smokers - you have a choice on where to go; if you don't like smoking, don't go there. I don't smoke and never have so if I want to go somewhere that allows smoking, I DEAL WITH it instead of whining about it. Unless I spend hours and days in a smoking environment, my health is not going to be affected much, if at all. My health is endangered more by driving on Veterans Parkway!!!!"

Out-of-Towner wrote on April 11, 2006 2:20 PM:"Do any of you whining people even realize how many pollutants you are living with every day? From the toxic fumes in your homes to the chemicals they put in your water to the cars you drive. Let's hear you start whining about all that. Let the business owners decide how they want to run their livelihoods. As to the "we can't expose or children" crap, no, let's send our kids on the school bus so they can learn how to swear, or to school or the mall where they can buy drugs. Give me a break! The last time I was at Pub II in Normal there as many little kids playing video games as there were aduts. "

To: A Reminder wrote on April 11, 2006 2:19 PM:"Yes, but drinking and driving USED to be legal. By your argument, it still would be, and the rest of us would just need to stay off their roads, or deal with the added health dangers of it. We certainly wouldn't want to take their RIGHT to drink away. I mean, how are they supposed to get home from the bars?? "

to bob wrote on April 11, 2006 2:17 PM:"You have lots of nice points on your post at 12:46 pm...it makes sense but the point is most of those things are illegal to do, you cant sell past a certain hour (alcohol) or sell to people under 21, and you cant sell crack..yes the laws and goverment override the bar and private owners rights do those things...but when it comes to smoking.. its those same laws and goverment that made smoking legal (over 18) so therefore the goverment and laws should NOT infringe the bar owners rights to decide if smoking is should be allowed in their OWN bars...if smoking is legal then who is the goverment to come in and say its legal yes but you cant do it in your own bar..."

Unreal wrote on April 11, 2006 2:13 PM:"Are you kidding me? That's the most ridiculous point I've seen yet, to even compare smoking to drinking and driving is just nonsense. Please next time you have a thought, LET IT GO."

To Rupert: wrote on April 11, 2006 2:13 PM:"If OTHER people eating a bigmac made me fat, then yes, they should ban it. Luckily for me it doesn't. You're comparing apples and oranges my friend. "

AGT wrote on April 11, 2006 2:12 PM:"If I drink it harms me(unless I drive) - it doesn't harm anyone else's health. If I smoke around other people it harms me and them. And now look at all the posts from smokers that talk about doing things just to spite the non-smokers. Way to handle the situation positively. This IS about health and this IS about choices and freedoms. But the facts and the truths are construed to fit each individual arguement. Istead of debating who is "better" and who's "rights are more important", think of a compromise to make this problem satisfactory for most people. Stop wasting your creativity or smart remarks. "

To: hmmmm.. wrote on April 11, 2006 2:10 PM:"The difference is it is my CHOICE which bad substance I consume. I can consume a drink right next to you, and unless I pinch your nose and pour it down your throat, then that is in no way relevant to the argument at hand."

A Reminder wrote on April 11, 2006 2:05 PM:"Smoking cigarettes is not against the law. Drinking and driving is against the law, so you cannot possibly compare the two. Smokers are not infringing on your health. You are infringing on their choice to smoke. If you don't like the smoke, then don't go stand in it. If you don't want your meal with a side of tar, then sit in non-smoking, or better yet, patronize a restaurant that is exclusively non-smoking. I am sure they will appreciate your business. But why bi&*% and complain when all you have to do is scoot over a few feet, or simply not choose to be near cigarette smoke. DW hit the nail on head. Doesn't matter where the smokers are, you will go over by their smoke, and then complain about it. Try this, just don't go over by the smoke. Simple as that. We don't need a referendum for such a simple problem that is so easy to solve. "

Rupert wrote on April 11, 2006 2:02 PM:"After reading many of the pro ban posts it assures me that most of them have not done their homework. While there may be more non smokers, most non smokers DO NOT frequent bars. Google search smoking ban and see the lists of all of the taverns that were forced to close after their city put a ban in. Another thing is where do the bans stop. Does McDonald's close because it makes people fat?"

Unreal wrote on April 11, 2006 1:59 PM:"Are you kidding me? That's the most ridiculous point I've seen yet, to even compare smoking to drinking and driving is just nonsense. Please next time you have a thought, LET IT GO."

To: hmmmmm wrote on April 11, 2006 1:38 PM:"We have laws against drunk driving b/c that's when one person's habit affects others' life & health. Same w/ smoking...you have the right to decide how to live your life until your choice infringes on that of others."

To: Control Issue wrote on April 11, 2006 1:31 PM:"I agree. I am also a smoker. My live-in boyfriend is not, neither is my 7 year old son. When we go out to eat, I choose non-smoking section to accommodate them, and I don't mind. It is called compromise. It would be nice if both sides would do it, though. Also, I believe the choice should be left up to the owners. They worked hard, and probably paid big money to get it started. They should choose what kind of establishment they want to be. It would be unfair for someone with a stick up their butt, and a vendetta against anything smoking, to tell the owners how to run their own establishments. After all, it's not like these stick people put any of their own sweat and money into the establishment, right?"

dw wrote on April 11, 2006 1:28 PM:"This isn't about health issues. It is about people not liking the fact that they can't go wherever they want. I don't care if there are 100 non-smoking restaurants in town, if there is ONE that allows smoking then gosh darnit that one needs to change so I can go there too!!!!! I am not being selfish and uncaring!!! I just want to be able to go wherever I want and tell others what they can and can not do!! And the owners...PLEASE!!!! What makes you think you can decide that in your PRIVATE business you can do something THAT IS LEGAL!!!! I mean it is not like you can just go out and buy cigarettes on any old street corner or anything...JEEZ!!!"

hmmmmmm wrote on April 11, 2006 1:22 PM:"The argument for this ban seems to center a lot around health issues. Well, the last I checked drinking alcohol isn't exactly the best way to treat your body either. So let me get this right....you want to ban something you don't do (smoke) which is bad for you, to go somewhere and do something else that you do like to do (drink), which is bad for you. Wow, your argument makes sense to me!!!!!"

Control Issue wrote on April 11, 2006 1:18 PM:"Would it be an issue if the council took a less direct approach towards consumers and good law abiding citizens, and truly put the issue in the hands of the business owners? If a business chooses to cater to smokers, would it be too much to require better proven (confined or remote) seating and ventilation specifications? I smoke occasionally, but I don't want my kids or any kid near it. Smoking certainly isn't a right, but a habit...like eating/drinking too much. Also, businesses are cowards for fear of retaliation either way. Step up and declare a preference, and if smoke free it is, so be it. We'll make a personal, government-free decision to go or not go there."

To: To all Smokers: wrote on April 11, 2006 1:15 PM:"Well, if we don't have rights, then neither do you! What makes you more worthy of rights than anyone else? And yeah, if you don't like the cigarette smoke, then don't BREATHE IT! Step aside a few feet, you will be fine. I am beginning to realize this is not a fight about health, because you have several options there: don't eat in a smoking establishment, or simply choose the non-smoking section; don't sit/stand next to a smoker; etc. It is not about health anymore. It is about your pushing your own preferences on everyone else. You don't smoke, therefore anyone who does is wrong or evil, therefore they have no rights. You and you non-smokers making up rules and statistics as you go along makes me laugh, and then relax with a smoke!"

To wake up and everyone else: wrote on April 11, 2006 12:58 PM:"Well then go ahead and move to California and Florida. I assure you, you will not be missed!"

To an Non-smoker wrote on April 11, 2006 12:57 PM:"Hey great idea. On the flip-side, let's all us smokers go to non-smoking restaurants and fill it with smoke so the non-smokers truly have no where else to eat. Why dish it out, if you can't take it?"

Non-Smokers will never be happy wrote on April 11, 2006 12:56 PM:"This argument is proof. They don't like the smoke, so to appease them, many restaurants have turned themselves into non-smoking establishments (by choice). Not surprisingly, they are still not happy. Why take the choice away from the smokers? You guys have a place to go eat where there is no smoke, so quit your crying. Your being non-smokers does not make you better than anyone else, and does not give you the right to piss and moan like big babies until the government is sick and tired of hearing you whine. It is NOT your RIGHT to dictate how owners run their restaurants. It IS, however, your RIGHT to eat somewhere else. Get over yourselves. This is a big enough town to accommodate both sides. And anyone who says otherwise is whining only to hear the sound of their own complaints."

Bob wrote on April 11, 2006 12:46 PM:"The rights of the establishment owner do NOT override the laws of the community (or State or Country). That is another groundless argument. They cannot sell liquor without a license, they cannot stay open past a certain hour, they can't sell to the under 21 crowd (or even let them in), they can't sell crack. There's many things they can't do. Why? Because there are federal, state and local laws against it, in order to protect the public. Just like if there is a local law against smoking in public establishments, then they will obey that law as well. Part of the argument is even that it should be allowed in bars because children can't go there. Why can't they? The EVIL laws are infringing on the bar owners rights! They should be able to sell liquor to every 5 year old who comes up with $2, right? They OWN the place. There rules are above the law."

Concerned Citizen wrote on April 11, 2006 12:38 PM:"I just want to say that I'm a non-smoker and have a hard time being around people who do smoke....But I think this is the way it should go. I feel the the resturants should be able to choose if they want to be smoking or non. I think that they need to display this on an outside sign that is visible to the public. Also I think that businesses that decide to stay a smoking establishment should have to sign a 5 year contact that says you have to stay a smoking establishment for that period of time. That way if they start losing business(because they are smoking) and people decide to go elsewhere they are S.O.L and can't change right away. The same goes the other way around. "

Smoking related diseases wrote on April 11, 2006 12:20 PM:"No one's going to argue that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer, the arguement is whether or not being around second hand smoke once in a while causes lung cancer. If someone has any evidence that spending a few hours a month in a smokey bar causes lung cancer I'd love to see it. Because the idea that second hand smoke harms/kills people is the only leg this proposal has to stand on."

Wake up wrote on April 11, 2006 12:18 PM:"We are late in doing this. Ever visit CA or FL. If you want to smoke and eat you have to do it in your with a drive-through. Hope we get there SOON!"

to we dont go: wrote on April 11, 2006 12:10 PM:"Your argument is pointless....b/c you are a non-smoker, please belive there is many many more familys that DO smoke, that WONT go to an estabolishment that doesnt allow smoking...for every family that says the business needs to wake up b/c they are a non-smoking family who wont go to their estabolishment b/c they allow smoking...i guarentee there is just as many households who smoke that do the opposite w/ non-smoking resteraunts...so either way people are not going to be happy..."

CUBS WILL CHOKE wrote on April 11, 2006 12:05 PM:"Cubs will choke, always have, always will. They fail every year again and again. I assume the Cardinals will once again dominate. My team, the Florida Marlins, well, we will see. "

We don't go to.... wrote on April 11, 2006 12:03 PM:".... restaurants that allow smoking anymore. Even sitting near the smoking section causes us to smell like smoke for the rest of the day, and that's not good. Wake up business owners! We're a family of five with household income of over $200,000 and eat out a lot, but if you allow smoking, we're not spending out money at your establishment. If all non-smokers only went to smoke-free restaurants, imagine how quickly owners would change their tune for the majority!"

Steve wrote on April 11, 2006 12:03 PM:"With smoking bans, where does it end? I see all of the bandwagon jumpers for a smoking ban saying it is for the health of everyone. So does this mean that McDonalds will soon be closing because its food is unhealthy? Will we ban alcohol because it can cause liver and kidney problems? You will all soon want to close Chuck E Cheese because their pizza has too much grease for children to consume. Everyone has their American right to do what they want. If there is smoking allowed somewhere, just exercise your right NOT to go there."

A non-smoker wrote on April 11, 2006 11:58 AM:"Here's an idea when going to restaurants -- if you're a non-smoker, ask to be seated in the smoking section all the time. That will reduce the number of seats available for smokers and clear up the air!"

this whole conversation wrote on April 11, 2006 11:57 AM:"is just plain and simple a lost cause....both sides will argue until there is no end...like i said in an earlier post WE have no choice in the matter.... "

? wrote on April 11, 2006 11:50 AM:"The owners of the restaurants should choose whether their establishment is smoke free or not!"

go cubs wrote on April 11, 2006 11:49 AM:"Pierre- ideal leadoff man…first true one the Cubs have had in the last 5+ years Walker- a good left handed bat with some pop....gets good pitches with Lee behind him Lee- last years batting champion…also the best fielding first basemen Ramirez- was having a monster season last year before injury Jones- although off to a slow start, Jones is a solid 25 homer guy Barrett- in my mind the best offensive catcher in the NL Murton- youngster who is very patient at the plate and wise beyond his years…knows how to go the other way with the ball Cedeno- the Cubs SS of the future has good fielding range and above average speed Rotation Zambrano- 3.08 ERA since 2003…enough said Maddux- 318 game winner and dominated the Cardinals in his first start…pinpoint control and perfect team player Rusch- stepped up last year to fill in for the loss of Prior Marshall- very impressive control and a huge sweeping curve Williams- the weak spot of the Cubs rotation but when Prior is healthy he will be removed Bullpen includes Dempster (33 of 35 for saves last year), Scott Eyre, and Bob Howry "

El Jimbo wrote on April 11, 2006 11:49 AM:"Because the profits of Restauraunts are MUCH more important than our health."

Dawn Peterson wrote on April 11, 2006 11:46 AM:"“Smoking-related diseases claim an estimated 430,700 American lives each year. Smoking costs the United States approximately $97.2 billion each year in health-care costs and lost productivity. It is directly responsible for 87 percent of lung cancer cases and causes most cases of emphysema and chronic bronchitis"(American Lung Association, 2005). It is also associated with heart disease and slow recovery from injuries and illnesses (American Heart Association, 2005; Orthopedic Research Society, 2005). Come on people, the evidence is there exposure to cigarette smoke is poisonous and should be avoided at all costs. Bring on the bans, and extinguish the filthy habit. "

why cant we all be happy wrote on April 11, 2006 11:45 AM:"All you non-smokers are out there talking about your health and this and that...and as a smoker i agree...how come i dont hear none of the non-smokers out there saying that "okay i dont like smoking, i dont like being around it but why shouldnt the smokers be allowed to smoke in these places that doesnt effect us?" WHY? b/c you guys dont care...we are still people and citizens, yes with a nasty habit....but answer me this...would it be SOO BAD if both sides were appeased? In a way that smokers could smoke in resteraunts/bars/taverns/public in a way that in NO WAY effects other non-smokers? answer me that please...."

CDEACN wrote on April 11, 2006 11:45 AM:"Smoke in your own time away from everyone else..... don't make us suffer"

Question to all pro-banners: wrote on April 11, 2006 11:43 AM:"Is your name on the deed to any of those evil, un-holy restaurants that still allow smoking? Do you have a monetary investment in said restaurant? No? Then you have no right to tell them how to run their establishments that they worked hard and paid for. Period. Simple as that. You don't like it, buy your own restuarant and make it non-smoking, or, to go the cheaper (and smarter route), go to a non-smoking restaurant. duh"

Padfoot wrote on April 11, 2006 11:43 AM:"Smoking needs to stop! Smokers strip the rights of everyone around them! Let us breath!"

To Bob wrote on April 11, 2006 11:39 AM:"Then that must explain why you are not aware of your freedom to eat in a non-smoking restaurant. Duh"

Batman wrote on April 11, 2006 11:38 AM:"Okay so this ridiculous. Smoking needs to be banned from public places. If you didn't already know second-hand smoke causes cancer. There's so much cancer in the U.S. as it is, why would we want to increase the chances of more people getting it? And I do find it comical that many of the people who are smokers that have posted don't sound very convincing. P.S. Robin agrees"

Dawn Peterson wrote on April 11, 2006 11:35 AM:"Smoking-related diseases claim an estimated 430,700 American lives each year. Smoking costs the United States approximately $97.2 billion each year in health-care costs and lost productivity. It is directly responsible for 87 percent of lung cancer cases and causes most cases of emphysema and chronic bronchitis"(American Lung Association, 2005). It is also associated with heart disease and slow recovery from injuries and illnesses (American Heart Association, 2005; Orthopedic Research Society, 2005). Come on people, the evidence is there exposure to cigarette smoke is poisonous and should be avoided at all costs. Bring on the bands, and extinguish the filthy habit. "

El Jimbo wrote on April 11, 2006 11:34 AM:"Should people have a "right" to harm others around them? "

TO ALL SMOKERS.. wrote on April 11, 2006 11:34 AM:"GET OVER IT AND GET HEALTHY."

I am a smoker wrote on April 11, 2006 11:32 AM:"I do not "light-up" in public, and feel it it something left for my garage or my back yard....I remember as a kid, when my dad smoked...the smoke would blow back at me in the car, or the ashes would blow in the backseat....This is totally disrespectful, and I feel that other people have more rights about smoking than I do, so I respect others."

anti-anti-smoker wrote on April 11, 2006 11:28 AM:"This is about taking away freedom for business owneres to choose whether to make an establishment smoke free or not. People have the right not to go to a smoking establishment if they don't want to (And there are plenty of places that do not allow smoking, go there instead and stop complaining). Also, all of the "I believes" being thrown around shouldn't mean squat. For example, what if the majority believed that slavery was a good thing again hmmm well then lets make it legal agian. I know! I believe that we shouldn't have the freedom of speech aforded us in the constitution so I say we ban that as well."

My 2 cents...for what it's worth. wrote on April 11, 2006 11:22 AM:"In my opinion - I would think people could have a little respect for other people and at least not light up in restaurants. And why do you need to be able to smoke while drinking? To me it is a health issue. We already abuse our health enough as it is, but at least it's by our own choice. By smoking it compromises my health because you have an unhealthy addiction. My husband is a smoker and he can eat a meal with out smoking - he is respectful enough of me to not smoke where I will breathe it, even at home! The effects of smoke to a person's health are irreversable! It's your right to damage your health but it is not your right to damage mine! A little more common courtesy and respect would do us all good!"

well bob wrote on April 11, 2006 11:21 AM:"ill be laughing in your face (and blowing smoke) when this ban DOES NOT go into effect (re-read the title of the article) and actually you sound like the one who has no argument....i never said either that you said you were better than anybody...i was just letting you know, SO U DONT FORGET, that u are NOT better than anybody....get over it... "

TO ALL NON_SMOKERS wrote on April 11, 2006 11:14 AM:"GET OVER IT!"

Flash Gordon wrote on April 11, 2006 11:13 AM:"Well I for one am happy to see that the city council will follow their normal procedure of ignoring the majority and letting me smoke anywhere I want. Good! Why should I be expected to go outside to smoke (could be cold or rainy) just so you can sit there. How about when I smoke-YOU go outside until I am finished! I love smoking; it makes me look soooo cool and sophisticated. And, as an added bonus, I can't taste the food! Look at how many dry cleaners we would put out of business if we all quit! We are helping the economy here people! We smoker win, you loose, so suck it up (literally!!)!"

Bob wrote on April 11, 2006 11:13 AM:"I'm not better than smokers. And I never said I was. That is the type of reactionary language and name calling that is often resorted to by debaters without a solid argument. I say once more - anything you CHOOSE to do stops being a CHOICE when it infringes upon the rights of others (see drinking and driving argument below). I shouldn't have to stay home (off the roads, etc) to avoid the negative effects of other peoples' 'choices'."

okay whos telling the truth wrote on April 11, 2006 11:06 AM:"one says 25% of the population are NON smokers, while the other says 25% of the population IS smokers...neither apparenly knows........."

To all smokers wrote on April 11, 2006 11:05 AM:"I have read your posts. A lot of you whine about your freedom and your rights. Why are you not concerned about the freedom and the rights of the majority of the citizens (we are the non-smokers if you don't remember)? Why is it that we should breath your poisons? Why is it that "if you (meaning us, the non-smokers) don't like it, stay home"? Why don't you folks just stay home and coat your lungs and walls and everything else with your smoke and nicotine?? BAN SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES. HELP US TO STAY HEALTHY. Our friends the smokers won't. "

Beating a dead horse wrote on April 11, 2006 10:54 AM:"This issue has been beaten to death, but it doesn't change the fact that a bar is a private establishment, they can refuse to serve you, they can choose to allow smoking, and you can refuse to go there. But that's not good enough for a lot of people, because they've convinced themselves that they have some imaginary right to enter a business someone else owns and start making demands, and by God if that doesn't work the city council is there to help take the owner's rights away to please the masses."

It is true wrote on April 11, 2006 10:51 AM:"less than 25% of the population over the age of 18 are non-smokers. A simple internet search will verify that statistic. However, this is not about smoking as much as it is about the rights of the business owner. All business owners now must follow regulations dictated by gov't, ie health codes, fire codes, licquor licenses, etc. This is just one of many guidelines they must follow. It is amazing how people think THEY have the right to smoke in another's establishment. The smoker here has NO RIGHTS. It is the rights of the business owners that currently allow smoking that are at stake. The selfish smokers just don't seem to understand that. NO ONE CARES about the inconvenience posed to you if this ban were passed. What we care about is gov't imposing law on business owners."

To "Let The Majority Rule" wrote on April 11, 2006 10:51 AM:"In Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me - and by that time no one was left to speak up. - Martin Niemöller (translated from the original German) Watch out if you enjoy something that the "majority" cares little about. Firearms, motorcycles, rollerboarding, cigars, rap, islam, homosexuality; quite a list. One of the strengths of America has been the "majority" defending the rights of the "minority" in their Constitutional right of Pursuit of Happiness. The times they are a'changin. Good Luck. "

well Bob wrote on April 11, 2006 10:48 AM:"you are right, but we do have the CHOICE to smoke, just like you have the CHOICE to not visit smoking estabolishments....just b/c you dont smoke doesnt mean u are better than anybody...."

Susan A wrote on April 11, 2006 10:46 AM:"If every gas station on every corner in both Bloomington and Normal are allowed to make a tidy profit on the sale of cigarettes, how can it be justified that other establishments be penalized by banning cigarettes and cutting their profits? This entire issue is sickingly trendy. Ban alcohol. Ban sushi. Ban meat because it offends vegetarians. This is an issue that each business needs to decide for itself and a choice each individual needs to make for her/himself. "

Majority? wrote on April 11, 2006 10:46 AM:"The reason everything isn't decided by a majority is that history has an annoying tendancy of proving that mob rule isn't exactly the best way to make laws. "

Common Sense wrote on April 11, 2006 10:42 AM:"Doing something that harms others is not a right, period. That's what laws are for - to protect people from other people's harmful actions. Why is this so hard for people to understand. No one is stepping on anyone's rights. They are protecting people's rights. You still have a right to smoke. When your smoking infringes on others' rights to breathe clean air, wherever they choose, it stops being a right. Drinking alcohol in a bar is legal because it doesn't effect other people. You can't drive home afterwards because it does effect other people. This is not a difficult issue. If you can't go awhile without smoking, stay home. Or go to rehab. And if there is another referendum, and they don't listen to the people again, then perhaps it is time to do away with Home Rule."

just a matter of time wrote on April 11, 2006 10:40 AM:"It will be just a matter of time (maybe 1 year maybe 15 years) until smokers won't have their precious "rights" (ha!). Eventually bans will go into place everywhere. It is happening slowly now and in years to come it will be ever so ubiquitous. Then the smoker's can all revolt in a lung coughing riot fit."

Bob wrote on April 11, 2006 10:30 AM:"The "where's our freedom" argument makes no sense. We aren't free to drink and drive, we aren't free to go over the speed limit, we aren't free to throw our trash in our yards, we aren't free to buy cigarettes under 18 and liquor under 21, we aren't free to do things that harm other people. Angie says she isn't out to harm anyone, but that's exactly what second hand smoke has been proven to do. Why should smokers decide where everyone else can go? No one is telling you not to smoke. They're just telling you where to smoke. If you don't want to go to a non-smoking establishement, then don't. If there's a total ban, then everyone can still go everywhere without harm to their health. Anything less than a total ban leaves people who choose to participate in a harmful habit making the decision of where I can go without harming my health. THAT is a loss of freedom."

D Lee wrote on April 11, 2006 10:22 AM:"Florida has had no smoking laws in effect for several years now and it is working very well. There are bars that allow smoking if their food sales constitute less than 10% of their total income. I can't help but notice most of the comments from those who oppose the ban seem to be illiterate! Smoke yourselves into shorter lives but let the rest of us enjoy clean air!"

SO YOUR RIGHT THEN?? wrote on April 11, 2006 10:19 AM:"So you say less than 25% of the population smokes...first off how do you know that????? And second if the numbers are really that low, does that mean b/c YOU dont smoke WE dont have rights???...i dont think so...you arent better than anybody who smokes...so dont try and act like it...you know what else is no-brainer??? If you dont like smoke, dont go into a smoking estabolishment!!!!! Come on now lets try and use your brain a little bit....."

Let the Majority Rule wrote on April 11, 2006 10:11 AM:"Less than 25% of the population smokes. Why should they control my comfort and health in public places? Let's just go with a simple "majority rule" -- no smoking in enclosed public places would be a no-brainer."

angie wrote on April 11, 2006 10:02 AM:"all i want to know is where is all the freedom we are suppose to have ?????????? i do smoke , i dont drink or do drugs.i enjoy smoking.i dont go out unless i can smoke there. i am not out to hurt anyone.but enjoy relaxing having a smoke after dinner. i am not out rapeing,stealing,beating anyone up just a cig to relax.do i have any rights? pretty soon we will all have no rights left at all!"

who cares wrote on April 11, 2006 9:53 AM:"there isnt really much we can do anyways...its out of our hands so whatever they decide is whats going to happen...for all us smokers if the ban goes into effect oh well if we keep complainig its not going to change anything we will just have to get over it...and if the ban doesnt go into effect (hopefully it doesnt) then all you non-smokers should shut up already and like everybody stated if you dont like smoke dont go into smoking esabolishments!!!...there are plenty of non-smoking resteraunts around. Its hilarious how all the non-smokers go into a place where smoking is permitted but then boo hoo that smoke is blowing in their face...um, duh!!! DONT GO THERE THEN.......but my point was either way for both smokers and non-smokers we are helpless with the decision of this vote...."

Long-Time Restaurant Worker wrote on April 11, 2006 9:41 AM:"I've worked for years in bars and restaurants and claiming for example that next they'll ban loud music bc it's bad for the ears is crazy. Those who work significant hours for a long time in smoky bars are forced to choose between their health and their job. I did leave a job because it was in a small very smoky bar and made me sick. I've also been around when a county bans smoking and what typically happens is that initially business falls off in the smoking section/smoking heavy bars until people get used to it and things go back to normal."

irene wrote on April 11, 2006 9:36 AM:"as a smoker i do still believe all resteraunts should be non smoking because of the children. but i do not think the bars should be treated the same.our children do not go there."

Heyworth resident wrote on April 11, 2006 9:33 AM:"Nothing less than a total ban on smoking, even outdoors, will do. Bloomington government officials passed the arena in the face of public opposition; saying it was the right thing to do for the community. That remains to be seen. However, there is no question that a complete smoking ban is for the good of the community ... so both the Bloomington and Normal governments should institute a complete ban. I also don't think that Normal should 'chicken out' and see what Bloomington does first ... go ahead and get it right with a complete ban. "

Eddie wrote on April 11, 2006 9:31 AM:"Alexanders Steakhouse has been smoke free for some time now and it doesn't seem to stop people from going there (smokers included), the lot is always full."

Music wrote on April 11, 2006 9:28 AM:"I see two responses from musicians here. IF the city can ban smoking under the pretense that it is bad for the employees, they will come after loud music next. Loud music is bad for the ears. "

Private Clubs/ Lodges wrote on April 11, 2006 9:24 AM:"Why are they exempt? All businesses are privately owned. Guess we won't be messing with the cigar smokers at BCC."

smokers opinion wrote on April 11, 2006 9:23 AM:"I believe non smokers have the right to eat at a restaurant that doesn't allow smoking. I'm a smoker and I prefer eating in a non smoking atmosphere too. When it comes to the bars on the other hand I don't think they should ban smoking. I know a lot of people who don't other wise smoke but when in that atmosphere they do. To say that this is not going to cut business would be a big miscalculation. However we would survive the ban!!!!!!"

To "the real me" wrote on April 11, 2006 9:22 AM:"Your attitude is exactly what causes the non-smoking world to sterotype us smokers. I, for one, can go to a restaurant, eat and not light up. I also have stood outside for years to smoke. I know alot of businesses who have made major purchases to bring in high ventilation systems. It all boils down to this - if you don't like the heat - stay out of the kitchen. If you really desire whatever food that restaurant is serving, but can't handle the smoke - make it your take home night and order out. And, yes, most of the people who work in that environment smoke and the others have been there so long, it doesn't bother them. This is just one more way for the City Councils to ignore the more pertinent problems (street repair, water, etc) to solve a "problem". "

Bob wrote on April 11, 2006 9:21 AM:"Next they'll be telling me I can't drink in my car because some crazy study said it might harm other people! Even if it does, everyone else has a choice not to buy a car and drive on those roads. This is basically the same argument. Think about it people. There are already laws based around all types of activities to protect people from the bad effects of those activities. When I go to a bar to play pool, I shouldn't be subjected to poisons from someone else's activities (and they are poisons). No one is outlawing smoking. Step outside, have your smoke, and come back in. Problem solved. "

a crotchety old man wrote on April 11, 2006 9:16 AM:"Stop waiving your arms and saying this is about your right to smoke or a business' right to let there be carcinogens in the air. This is because you are too weak to stop smoking. And each time a message starts with,"First off I am a non-smoker . . ." we don't believe you. Please, we know that you are really a smoker. And you do it because you are too weak to stop. And you started because you were too weak to not do it in the first place. And now, you are too weak to even go 45 minutes without a smoke in a restaurant."

Shane wrote on April 11, 2006 9:07 AM:"Smoking should be banned everywhere. My wife has asthma and when she is around smoke her asthma kicks in. Even if we are sitting in a no smoking section, if the restaurant doesn't have good ventilation the smoke drifts. You can't smoke at work. Why should we ask the restaurant staff to inhale smoke while they work?"

To 'The wrote on April 11, 2006 9:03 AM:"And this goes to all other that post on this site... 'Real Me' you are correct; I do not frequent smoky bars due to the smoke that I have to put up with. I would like to very much, but don't because I am allergic to smoke. If that makes me a “crotchedy old man w/wet diapers” then so be it. (However, I do feel that bars should be exempt from a smoking ban. When I enter a bar, I expect to put up with smoke. That is part of the normal atmosphere of a bar. I do not want to put up with some inconsiderate person's smoke when I am trying to enjoy a dinner. If you are that pathetic that you HAVE to have a cigarette during a meal, you have a real problem that you need to deal with FAST. I don't need to be paying anymore to cover your medical care when you get sick from your habit; and you WILL end up sick. That makes this issue something that the government should get into as it affects us all!"

To "Clean Air" from Drew wrote on April 11, 2006 9:02 AM:"How do you come to the conclusion that smoke-free bars will have increased patrons due to the fact that there are more non-smokers than smokers in this community. That is incorrect! More smokers than non-smokers frequent bars. In fact, many people started smoking or continue smoking because they drink at bars. The only reason there are more non-smokers is because our community is also composed of kids too young to even purchase smokes, so of course there are more non-smokers. Wow, you are not very intelligent and you should keep your illogical thoughts to yourself. "

Deborah wrote on April 11, 2006 9:01 AM:"In response to L Seroka's comment: Basically, a business that allows smoking IS a "smoking only" establishment because everyone breathes the same air. One cigarette puts smoke into everyone else's air. Smokers have the choice of smoking outside; the only choice the rest of us have is to stay home and not spend our money in these places-- that's why we ARE yelling from here to Washington."

Leave establishments alone wrote on April 11, 2006 8:49 AM:"What people need to realize is that no one is obligated to go to establishments that allow smoking. And furthermore no one is forced to work there. The people who go to and work at smoking establishments are there by choice. Let them be."

before they are posted. Please read this before posting.

This is cache, read story here